About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)
of state hillary clinton's next move. she could become america's next great mayor? >>> and also, new psychiatric manual defines binge eating as a mental illness. we'll bring ut details. first, let's get the news live at 5:30 a.m. by our partially deaf news anchor here. >> with 27 days to go for negotiating until a year end deadline, the white house is wasting no time rejecting the republicans' fiscal cliff counter offer on tax reforms and spending cuts. the gop plan consists of $2.2 trillion in saving officials a decade including raging the age for medicare from 65 to 67 and lowering the cost of living increases for social security benefits. they also propose overhauling the tax code to generate $800 billion in new revenue but without raising taxes on the wealthy. frn in a letter to the president, republicans attempted to sell the offer as the erskine bowles plan, comparing it to the same offer he drew up last year. >> i think he'd disagree. >> the co-chair of obama's deficit commission, but yesterday mr. bowles flatly rejected that connection. meanwhile, the white house is turning t
, like forever. four days ago we offered a serious proposal, based on testimony of president clinton's former chief of staff. since then, there's been no counteroffer from the white house. instead, reports indicate that the president has adopted a deliberate strategy to slow-walk our economy right to the edge of the cliff. instead of cutting spending, the president want to raise tax rates. but even if the president got the tax rate hike that he wanted, understand that we would continue to see trillion dollar deficits for as far as the eye can see. listen, washington has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. and if the president doesn't agree with our proposal, i believe he has an obligation to families and small businesses, to offer a plan of his own, a plan that can pass both chambers of the congress. we're ready and eager to talk to the president about such a plan. >> speaker, you spoke with the president earlier this week. can you characterize this call? if he called, did he have any kind of counteroffer? and also, we understand that he's just making clear that it's got to be
very careful not to say we have to go up to the clinton-era 39.6%. he hasn't used that number. and so he's -- you know -- >> right now it's 35%. >> right now it's 35%. so if you look in the middle, okay, 37% is a real possibility. but here's the caveat. john boehner, the house speaker, cannot take a rate increase to his caucus unless it is accompanied by some signal of real entitlement cuts. something that they do now and give a down payment on for the future. i don't think you get -- could get rates through unless the president gave a little bit. and if you look at the document from the grand bargain back in july of 2011, the president was willing to give on that. so we'll have to see if they can get back to that. but again, has to be one significant item that they know they'll be able to build upon in the future. an item from both sides. >> neither side's going to be thrilled. but they've got to compromise. >> that's the way life usually works, doesn't it? >> certainly does. thank you. >>> meanwhile, huge announcement today on capitol hill. the conservative senator jim demint of sou
and a failure of leadership and america deserves better. >> it's true when bill clinton left office in 2000 we had you are plus and the deficit would have been eliminated as we sit here today what changed that was the republican president and congress. what put us on the path we are on now is not democrats. we would have no collective debt at all if we had left in place the clinton budgetary strategy. megyn: what do you make of that quote. >> what i'm responding to is i think what we are dealing with is a tell poar a temporal thing. it would drive the markets down and create say could and uncertainty. the president is saying we can't go through that again. megyn: he's wanting not only to raise it but to have uniform authority to raise. a fewer years ago they were saying that was a failure of leadership. >> he may not get it but he's right to argue that way the republicans have been doing this has been irresponsible. let's get this done in the way our democracy has worked the for hundreds of years. not this new extraordinary thing. i think he's right to put pressure on the republicans. megyn: i
for tax reform and robert reish, former secretary of labor for president bill clinton and the author of "beyond outrage." none of the three of us are beyond outrage, grover norquist, which is why i keep having you back. the situation it seems to me as an impartial observer here is that both sides have now made fairly ludicrous offers that they know the other side is never going to accept in a million years. that does beg the question, grover, why bother, given that both sides know where they need to move, why the games? >> well, it's not clear that both sides know. the week after the election, president obama was asked do you have to have the higher rates or could we have deductions and credits and he said he was open to negotiations. three weeks later, after thanksgiving, he shows up and all of a sudden there's a line in the sand on rates that had come out of nowhere, so the president seems to be moving the goal posts in a deliberate effort, i don't know, to extract something, to push people over the fiscal cliff. something's going on and it's not clear because he's not where he use
the president or either from secretary clinton or tony blair is, you know, they talk about the if. what then? any possible scenarios, possible action, i'm not hearing concrete scenarios, are you? >> well, you're not, brooke. i think for a very good reason. they want to stop this before it gets to that. nobody wants to have to strike at syrian chemical weapons plants. if you think about it logically, it is a very tough target. you have to know exactly where it is. you have to strike that hard enough to virtually incinerate all the chemical or biological material there before it escapes into the atmosphere. if those chemical weapons started to go on the move, in artillery shells or bombs, could you chase them all down? and, of course, in syria, much of this material is located or co-located in neighborhoods and towns with civilian populations. so you're putting civilian populations at risk. i think that's why you're hearing the very tough language from washington to nato headquarters. everybody wants this stopped before it even happens, brooke. >> talking about baer last hour, former cia, he s
Search Results 0 to 9 of about 10 (some duplicates have been removed)